---

Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar (middle) accompanied by Member Justice Maria Farida Indrati (left) and Member Justice Manahan MP Sitompul at petition revision session on Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation on Monday (22/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held petition revision session on Act Number 5 Year 1960 of Agrarian Basic Regulation (UU Agraria). The petition was filed by several Surabaya residents who felt harmed their constitutional rights due to their lands was claimed by Surabaya city government.

At the session, the Applicant represented by Applicant’s Attorney Muhammad Sholeh replaced two Applicants because their land certificate on behalf of their wives. The Applicant also erased Article 7 and Article 9 Act of Agrarian from the petition. Therefore, only Article 17 (1) Act of Agrarian which still reviewed.

Moreover, the Applicant emphasized that Surabaya government should return the land if they had no land ownership proof. If the government was able to proof land ownership, the limitation on land ownership should be made as referred in Article 17 Act of Agrarian. “Lands which didn’t used by the city government should be bought by the state and distributed by citizens who didn’t have the lands,” said him at the session of case number 62/PUU-XIII/2015 which led by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar.

Article 17 (1) Act of Agrarian stated:

 “Subject to the provision on Article 7, to achieve the objective stated in Article 2 (3) is regulated the maximum and or minimum broad of land which allowed to be owned under such rights in Article 16 by one family or legal entity.” (Dengan mengingat ketentuan dalam Pasal 7 maka untuk mencapai tujuan yang dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 ayat (3) diatur luas maksimum dan/atau minimum tanah yang boleh dipunyai dengan sesuatu hak tersebut dalam Pasal 16 oleh satu keluarga atau badan hukum.”).

 

In the petitum, the Applicant requested the Court to declare Article 17 (1) Act of Agrarian unconstitutional if it was interpreted ‘the land owned by the regional government legal entity was only covered to the land used by regional government institutions’.

At first session, the Applicant explained their houses were claimed by Surabaya government as government-owned lands. It was because the Applicant and ten thousand Surabaya residents had no land ownership certificate and only had a lease letter which called green letter. “In 1970s, some Surabaya residents were requested to submit their land letter under promise it would be raised as certificate. However instead of certificate, the result was only green letter,” said Sholeh.

According to Sholeh, residents of about 78 villages out of 126 villages only have green letter. In other words, one-third of the Surabaya city was claimed as Government’s land and the people who living in the Government’s land should have to pay the rent. He explained that several local residents had filed a lawsuit to the court but never won, either in the first level, the second, or the Supreme Court. They submitted the lawsuit to the District Court and the State Administrative Court. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---